Appeal to emotion

Via the Washington Post/Volokh Conspiracy, this political advertisement attacking someone for having been a criminal defense attorney:


RGA spokesperson Jon Thompson defended the ad by commenting, “Vincent Sheheen made a deliberate choice to defend violent criminals who abused women and children. He is unfit and unprepared to serve as governor of South Carolina.” 

The comments are hilarious. From one:

You (as a lawyer) are much too easy on yourself. If you attend a top school and do well enough to freely choose the form of your practice, you should know at that time that you may be judged for your choice. If you followed the money to serve bad clients, and especially if you made a career of it, you should definitely be able to answer for it. If you can't or won't, we'll assume you're greedy, ambitious, or both; these may not disqualify you, but they certainly won't ennoble you

Obviously the author of the original post is biased and is just self-interestedly defending his own livelihood, right? It can't be that he has some special knowledge of the way the world works that makes it impossible for him to believe that justice could be adequately served if we just make sure we "punish the guilty".

Or this slightly more naive one:

I don't agree with the ad's criticism of Sheehen, but I don't see why it's out of bounds. Its an opportunity for Sheehen to respond and explain something about the legal profession, the adversary system, why he does what he does and why he believes that is right and why it makes him a good candidate for office.

Too funny, because the marketplace of ideas works so well and people love a good, passionless appeal to reason. Which is why this guy's comment is so great:

And Romney did a poor job of explaining why private equity firms like Bain are good for the country (if they are) just like the legal profession does a very poor job of explaining why the guy waving his willy at a bunch of kids on the playground gets a taxpayer funded legal aid lawyer.

Yes, that seems right. People just don't do a good enough job explaining why people's negative emotional reactions to things like being a corporate raider or criminal defense attorney may be misplaced. Another:

Why is the comment that this is what this man chose to do with his life out of bounds? Because we think what he did with his life is good? I don't see how its a special category of criticism.

He doesn't stop there:

Neither you, nor [the author] has explained why criticism of the legal profession is in some special out of bounds category. Is it because we think defense lawyers are important? 

Somebody's attempt to provide a well-reasoned rebuttal to the argument:

"Innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" (not to mention “equal justice for all”) are no longer operative principles when defense counsel "spins", "lies" and "withholds" (etc.) all in the name of "justice" for a "client" (especially one with monetary resources). Clearly all levels of this nation's regulatory and judicial systems also greatly discount these “ancient” principles, concurrent with the abandonment of "mens rea".  

For those of you not versed in legal speak, mens rea is the mental state required for the commission of a particular crime (e.g. intent to kill for murder, whereas manslaughter doesn't necessarily include intent to kill). I think what this person is saying is that it's not what people do that matters, it's whether they are good or evil people? :)

He continues:

In the prescriptive and procedure driven society we in the USA are burdened with I think it is naive to believe that politicians, prosecutors and attorneys in general are guided by a certain set of highly developed, balanced (i.e., “professional”), ethical standards; like the rest of the populace each individual must consistently demonstrate their personal character and the "ethical standards of behavior" by which they conduct themself.

I think what he means is that people who just follow the letter of the law can still be criticized for not having the right personal character.

If the self-assuredness of people like this doesn't freak you out a little bit, then perhaps you and I have different levels of fear about the strength of emotion-fueled mobs.

Finally, perhaps my favorite exchange:

It's not that the RGA thinks that defendants shouldn't be represented at trial, it's just that the RGA thinks criminal defense attorneys are reprehensible scum who should be hounded out of all decent society to live lives of shameful remorse for their heinous deeds.

Followed by the rebuttal:

There are many members of "decent society" who are not governors of their state.

I mean, these people supporting the advertisement are absolutely right -- this candidate has apparently fallen short of their expectations of moral character. And they have every right to not vote for him based on that. But isn't that a little like saying that it's fine for Catholics to have certain jobs but not be governor (especially if we happen to be God fearing protestants)? That we can allow atheists to join the city council maybe, but definitely not allow them to corrupt our children as grammar school teachers? If you're Sunni and we're Shiite, you have failed our moral character test? I know some of you have strong feelings about morality. I guess I'm just making the point that they are largely subjective and that a lot of people would not agree with you and that they are just as right as you are, or at least you can't prove otherwise. Also, when sociopaths manipulate it is wrong but when other people manipulate to get someone elected with stronger moral character, that is better?

Why despite this being true, blatant appeals to emotion are still so effective.

Ethics

I was talking to a sociology professor acquaintance of mine, who also has been diagnosed with Asperger's (interesting combination). She was discussing the process of getting an experiment approved by her institution. I am always interested to hear different iterations of ethical codes, so I started asking her about the sociological approach to ethics, which is apparently very different from the psychological approach and is abhorrent to anthropologists. She told me that sociologists have a bad reputation from studies like Tuskegee syphilis experiment (arguably not even a sociological experiment) and the Milgram experiment.

To me the Milgram experiment is just good science. Get some ordinary person via a classified ad, put them in a room, instruct them to torture a third person, and see how far they are willing to go, based solely on the "authority" of the person conducting the experiment.

The sociologist acquaintance of mine thought that the Milgram experiment is harmful to test subjects because people want to believe that they are a good person, not someone who is capable of doing horrific things, and the test deprives them of that belief. I told her that the experiment did society a favor by forcing at least some of its members to face hard facts, i.e. almost anyone is capable of the world's worst horrors, if only put in the right situation. My argument was that if we fail to understand our capabilities for evil as well as for good, than we are doomed to repeat the atrocities of yesteryear. We agreed to disagree about this point.

Later in the conversation, however, she began talking about how she uses her charisma and the structure of the class to get her students to realize that they are racist, that they have knee-jerk reactions unsupported by any evidence, and that the logical conclusions of their positions would be tenets that they would be unwilling to acknowledge as their own, despite being the root of their misinformed views. Of course I support her manipulating her students to the point of shaking the very foundations of their beliefs, but I did mention to her that I thought it was a little hypocritical that on the one hand she thought it was "unethical" to expose experiment subjects to the realization that they too could be torturers given the right circumstances, but she was willing to basically tell her students that their belief systems were completely flawed. People in her classes cry when they realize how small-minded they have been. How is this any different than the Milgram experiment, I asked? Because if it is different, it seems to only be a matter of degree of harm, not type.

When I finally got her to realize my point, she gave me a look as if she were going to cry too and started asking me if I believe in the "soul" and why would I be asking all of these questions. I felt bad for having let the mask slip (apparently, although I thought we were just having a reasonable discussion). I tried unsuccessfully to backtrack saying things like your students arguably impliedly consent to this treatment by signing up for your class (no they don't, the class is required, she is the only one who teaches it), or for going to university in the first place (can you really be said to consent to being the mental plaything of your professors by going to university?). I woke up the next day to a very long email (Asperger's) going into aspie detail with sentences like this "When we assess the consequences of policies or laws or teaching philosophies that are driven by normative and evaluative ideological considerations, the assessment can be shifted from 'right' or 'wrong' to 'functional' or 'dysfunctional'" and "And of course, one could argue that by making assessments on the basis of what is functional/dysfunctional for society (vs. individuals), we are also saying, as a normative/evaluative issue, that the well-being of society is more important than giving effect to the norms and values of sub-groups in society. This is especially (ethically) problematic in that what is functional for society may actually serve to further marginalize vulnerable minority groups (antithetical to certain democratic values), but if the society is not healthy, then the rest becomes moot (maybe)." And then she basically went on to say that society values critical thinking skills, so jacking with her student's minds is fine, ethically speaking.

I think this is illustrative of the true point of systems of ethics, which is -- let's agree on some random value system that we'll call "common" or "normal" and either enforce it past the point of bearing any resemblance to what it was meant to accomplish in the first place or ignore it whenever it is convenient. If the end is always going to justify the means, what is the point of even discussing the ethics of the process?

Sheeple

An empath reader sent this (accurate?) video on how people are manipulated, particularly en masse:

Mob mentality

This was another interesting column in the New York Times about the history, origins, and power of fear + mob mentality in the U.S. Normal people sometimes don't like sociopaths because they don't like feeling that they are just a patsy to the sociopath's intrigues. They are hyper focused on thinking that the sociopath is the root to their problems. It may or may not be true that sociopaths are to blame for as many problems for which they are blamed. Historically, however, it is this fear, suspicion, and hate of "others" that not only perpetuates negative stereotypes to the utter disregard of reality, but leaves people open to be a further patsy to those who would capitalize off of their fear. These opportunists may include political or religious leaders, bosses and neighbors, and anyone else that would use your fear to drive their own ascension to power, or even turn other people's fears against you. Here are excerpts from the column:

A radio interviewer asked me the other day if I thought bigotry was the only reason why someone might oppose the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan. No, I don’t. Most of the opponents aren’t bigots but well-meaning worriers — and during earlier waves of intolerance in American history, it was just the same.

Screeds against Catholics from the 19th century sounded just like the invective today against the Not-at-Ground-Zero Mosque. The starting point isn’t hatred but fear: an alarm among patriots that newcomers don’t share their values, don’t believe in democracy, and may harm innocent Americans.

Followers of these movements against Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese and other immigrants were mostly decent, well-meaning people trying to protect their country. But they were manipulated by demagogues playing upon their fears — the 19th- and 20th-century equivalents of Glenn Beck.

Most Americans stayed on the sidelines during these spasms of bigotry, and only a small number of hoodlums killed or tormented Catholics, Mormons or others. But the assaults were possible because so many middle-of-the-road Americans were ambivalent.

Suspicion of outsiders, of people who behave or worship differently, may be an ingrained element of the human condition, a survival instinct from our cave-man days. But we should also recognize that historically this distrust has led us to burn witches, intern Japanese-Americans, and turn away Jewish refugees from the Holocaust.
***
Historically, unreal suspicions were sometimes rooted in genuine and significant differences. Many new Catholic immigrants lacked experience in democracy. Mormons were engaged in polygamy. And today some extremist Muslims do plot to blow up planes, and Islam has real problems to work out about the rights of women. The pattern has been for demagogues to take real abuses and exaggerate them, portraying, for example, the most venal wing of the Catholic Church as representative of all Catholicism — just as fundamentalist Wahabis today are caricatured as more representative of Islam than the incomparably more numerous moderate Muslims of Indonesia (who have elected a woman as president before Americans have).

During World War I, rumors spread that German-Americans were poisoning food, and Theodore Roosevelt warned that “Germanized socialists” were “more mischievous than bubonic plague.”

Anti-Semitic screeds regularly warned that Jews were plotting to destroy the United States in one way or another. A 1940 survey found that 17 percent of Americans considered Jews to be a “menace to America.”

Chinese in America were denounced, persecuted and lynched, while the head of a United States government commission publicly urged in 1945 "the extermination of the Japanese in toto." Most shamefully, anti-Asian racism led to the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II.

All that is part of America’s heritage, and typically as each group has assimilated, it has participated in the torment of newer arrivals — as in Father Charles Coughlin’s ferociously anti-Semitic radio broadcasts in the 1930s. Today’s recrudescence is the lies about President Obama’s faith, and the fear-mongering about the proposed Islamic center.

But we have a more glorious tradition intertwined in American history as well, one of tolerance, amity and religious freedom. Each time, this has ultimately prevailed over the Know Nothing impulse.

Americans have called on moderates in Muslim countries to speak out against extremists, to stand up for the tolerance they say they believe in. We should all have the guts do the same at home.

This is why I am anxious in crowds. This is why I am a libertarian. I think I have a healthy fear of persecution that helps constrain any inclination to persecute others. Similarly, I wouldn't mind if the tables were turned on some of those people who are so sure that they know what's right and best for everyone. Maybe if they were on the receiving end of persecution themselves, they wouldn't be so self-satisfied. But I am glad that with the prohibitions on women wearing face veils in France, protests against a Muslim community center in New York, etc., people who would normally consider themselves open minded, inherently "good" and "wise" individuals with clear definitions of "right" and "wrong" are being faced to stare down the barrel of reality.

I smell change.

Fear leads to anger

This is an interesting quote from the movie "A Single Man." In the movie it refers to the gay population, but I think it works equally well for any persecuted minority, whether an ethnic minority in Africa targeted for genocide, or people whose minds work a little bit differently. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, but it's not much of one.

The Nazis were obviously wrong to hate the Jews. But their hating the Jews was not without a cause… But the cause wasnʼt real. The cause was imagined. The cause was FEAR.

Letʼs leave the Jews out of this for a moment and think of another minority. One that can go unnoticed if it needs to.

There are all sorts of minorities, blondes for example, but a minority is only thought of as one when it constitutes some kind of threat to the majority. A real threat or an imagined one. And therein lies the FEAR. And, if the minority is somehow invisible……the fear is even greater. And this FEAR is the reason the minority is persecuted. So, there always is a cause. And the cause is FEAR. Minorities are just people. People……like us.

Fear, after all, is our real enemy. Fear is taking over our world. Fear is being used as a tool of manipulation in our society. Itʼs how politicians peddle policy and how Madison Avenue sells us things that we donʼt need. Think about it. Fear that weʼre going to be attacked, fear that there are communists lurking around every corner, fear that some little Caribbean country that doesnʼt believe in our way of life poses a threat to us. Fear that black culture may take over the world. Fear of Elvis Presleyʼs hips.Well, maybe that one is a real fear. Fear that our bad breath might ruin our friendships… Fear of growing old and being alone. A fear that we’re useless and no one cares what we have to say.